On 06/07/11 10:14, Andrew Hanushevsky wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011, Brian Bockelman wrote:
>> Alright, now I'm confused. My understanding is that Matevz was complaining
>> that the name recorded in the new monitoring record was truncated at 8
> I think he is but it's comming from the fact that the gsi plug-in is not
> returning the translated name so he might have to rely on the traceid; which of
> course, you can't except in limited circumstances.
>> I'm fine with the trace-id being "truncated", as we can back-track it to their
>> login, which looks like this:
>> 110607 02:47:20 5315 XrootdXeq: glxcuser.2050:[log in to unmask]
>> login as uscmsPool1836
>> I assume the trace-id is the "glxcuser.2050:[log in to unmask]",
>> which I'm assuming is simply an opaque unique identifier (and hence not meant
>> to derive meaning, such as a user name, from).
> Bingo! Yes, you are correct. He should be using the authenticated name and that
> is being recorded in the monitoring records (as well as the "meaningless"
> traceid). That's the 'uscmsPool1836' full name in the above line.
> This, of course, brings up the question of how you got the full name displayed
> in your log record? He only gets the x500 hash from the gsi plugin he is using.
> I assume you are using the same plugin but your mapping function works (his does
I guess this is the log ... I only get UDP monitoring streams where this info is
Even when we get the GSI plugin plugin -- this information will still be
missing, as I'll get full DN, but not the full user name.
What is glxcuser in the above case?